GRA and Equality Act

[Zhora]

I'm not an expert on the two acts so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand it the Equality Act covers trans people's access to facilities and services unless there is a good reason that can be argued for them being excluded. They do not need a GRC and the majority do not have one. Therefore anyone who wants to can already use the facilities of the gender they identify with. Are changes to the GRA actually likely to make any significant changes to the numbers accessing services? Wouldn't they already be doing so?

The fact that the law is not clear and that the GRA 2004 and EA 2010 can be interpreted to undermine each other is why some feminists are now going beyond ‘No to Self ID’ and would instead prefer the ‘legal fiction’ of the GRC is repealed entirely (with the caveat that those who already have one, keep one. After all, that’s fewer than 5,000 people).

Either act can be looked at in isolation, that’s for sure.

*neither, not either.

Gosh Zhora, you certainly are focused very heavily on Trans issues aren't you. To the exclusion of all others, judging by your posting history.

In fact many of your posts make you sound very keen indeed for someone to say something that could be twisted into a transphobic comment or to react badly to a dogwhistle comment.

What on earth possible reason could there be for that type of posting behaviour?

This is a thread about the law. Difficult to see how legal facts can be twisted as transphobic. Do feel free to add your own knowledge of the GRA and Equality Act to the discussion though.

Are you interested in discussion, Zhora? I asked you a question this morning:

So, Zhora, if everyone could choose their legal sex using self-id, do you think we would see more male 'transgender' prisoners, or fewer?

I haven't seen an answer from you yet. Do you not wish to discuss this?

Genuinely not sure if you need a GRC to be classed as a trans prisoner or not. I imagine that if you identify as trans you would be classed as a trans prisoner, GRC or not. Perhaps someone can clarify. If that's the case then I don't imagine some sudden increase because anyone getting a GRC on the basis of any GRA changes would be trans already.

Zhora- I really don't understand why you are insisting that there won't be a significant increase in the number of people getting a GRC - the whole reason that there is this pressure for change is that there are apparently thousands of transgender people for whom the current GRC process is too onerous, which is why there is such pressure to simplify the procedure so that they can all get one!

Thistledew's post of 00.08 is an excellent summary of the law and problems with it, in my view.

I would also add that the Codes of Practice which accompany the Equality Act (and are not law but guidance to which courts/tribunals must have regard) seem to me to go further than the legislation.

For example, the Code makes a lot of how well a TW passes - basically saying if they do they should normally be allowed to use services in their new gender. I don't see how this is sensible. And I think the widening out of what discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment means (so that it includes permitting transwomen accessing women's sex segregated services) comes from the Code, I don't think it is clear in the wording of the Act that this is what the Act means.

Well,thank you *Zhora I will feel free to add to this

I personally think the law is actually quite clear on this (if fundmentally and abhorrently flawed by stealing women's morally inalienable rights in the first place, amongst other flaws).

Single sex exemptions can apply. Needs of competing groups must be balanced (again even if the premise is flawed) and if exemptions are to be made, the least discriminatory option should be chosen.

The problem we have I think is in getting men/organistions to give any importance to women's needs when they do the balancing; women rarly score any points. This is the misogyny.

Reading one of the prison judgements re the male who was moved to a women's prison, the other day I was struck by just little weight the judge gave to the consideration of the risk/ suffering to women, and how dismissive his attitude. He briefly and superficially acknowledged a risk, but as if it were merely theoretical rather then being the suffering of actual human beings, woman) and so scored it as of little to no importance.

ALL the importance was given to the needs/ suffering of the male. Women scored 1 out of 10 for severity of needs, the male scored 8 out of 10 = male wins on balancing. The biased misogynist judgement makes bad law even worse and this is not justice or equality.

Women's toilets (and other spaces) were always for females Zhora only morally bankrupt people would argue otherwise. TRA attempts to re-define words to include transwomen as women to try to justify the unjustifiable theft of women's rights is not as clever as you think it is. The desperate acts of unstable and irrational men.

As Barracker said on the Debbie Hayton thread, even having a GRC gives "a legal mandate (from men over women) It is not a moral one. It has always been immoral.

Zhora- I really don't understand why you are insisting that there won't be a significant increase in the number of people getting a GRC - the whole reason that there is this pressure for change is that there are apparently thousands of transgender people for whom the current GRC process is too onerous, which is why there is such pressure to simplify the procedure so that they can all get one! confused

I'm not talking about an increase in the number of people getting a GRC, of course there will be. What I'm saying is that this idea that there's going to be this sudden explosion of people using female facilities is false as the people getting a GRC are trans already and can already use the facilities of there choice thanks to the Equality Act. A simplification of the process in terms of getting a GRC doesn't equal more trans people.

A simplification of the process in terms of getting a GRC doesn't equal more trans people.

No, what it will mean is more paedophiles and rapists who will pretend to be trans in order to gain access to victims. Look at the quote from Dr James Barrett in my post this morning.

Do you understand yet? If there is no gatekeeping then bad men (not genuine transgender people) will use the law for the wrong reasons. This has nothing to do with genuine transsexuals, some of whom have spoken out against changes to the law for this reason.

No, what it will mean is more paedophiles and rapists who will pretend to be trans in order to gain access to victims.

I keep having to come back to the same answer. Anyone who really wants to could identify as trans already and access certain spaces - the GRC does not give them any more access or legal protection with regard to that. As previously mentioned a GRC holder can still be excluded under the provisions of the Equality Act. Why are paedophiles and rapists waiting for a piece of paper that will not give them any more access rights?

Zhora
If, as you maintain, a GRC has no effect on the life of the holder, I assume you have filled in the government consultation and have said that no changes should be made, or that the GRA should be repealed. If there are no benefits to having a GRC, there is surely no point in obtaining one. Is that your view?

I stop engaging with you when you suggest I have some motivation for helping paedophiles and rapists.

What do you think the point of a GRC is, OP?

You can use it as you would a birth certificate for some documents such as passports. I believe it would also change things like the date you received a pension but obviously that will be wiped out by the retirement ages being brought together. For some trans people it's a psychological thing, they just feel it's personally important to them to have that document. I guess that's a bit similar to some couples who think marriage is important and others who regard it as a meaningless process to them personally.
However, as I've pointed out already, what it doesn't do is suddenly open the door to the facilities and services of the gender you identify with - those are already open to you. It also doesn't mean you cannot be excluded from those facilities and services if there's a certain need to stop you accessing them.

Might as well abolish GRCs altogether if there's no real point to them, surely?

I've just explained the use of them. Just because some people don't feel they need them doesn't mean they're pointless.

To those who think it is a positive move to erase a transgender person's past, read this:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-offender-seeks-to-wipe-crimes-as-aman-from-record-qfk5w68lb

'A transgender offender is seeking to delete from her record two crimes that could only have been committed by a man.'

• A right to removal, if established, could cover rape, another crime that can legally be committed only by a person with a penis.

Trans people with a gender recognition certificate are legally entitled to keep their birth gender secret.*

Still think that's cool? That the man who committed unspeakable crimes as Ian Huntley would now like those erased as he identifies as a woman.

This is a key point that both sides tend to ignore or forget and the government has ruled out any changes to the EA for the present. So, those exemptions will still work in exactly the same way under a streamlined GRA.

No they won't. The possession of a GRC is likely to strengthen a discrimination claim to the point where it wouldn't be possible to exclude a MTF with a GRC because it's a much higher bar to demonstrate proportionality. So letting lots more males into the female sex class waters down women's sex protections. And even the notion of a disadvantaged sex class.

just add, the GRC, is not the instrument that makes a trans person their new sex, and does not give any “sex based” protections.

Yes it does. Males with GRC are protected sex characteristic female, males without are protected sex characteristic male.

Zhora - try looking at it from the perspective of the women-only organisations rather than the individuals.

Because at present only a small number of people have a GRC, for the reasons I set out in my long post above, most organisations are able to justify a blanket exclusion of the male sex, and can easily deal with the handful of people with a GRC on a case by case basis. If there are a large number of people with a GRC then a blanket exclusion will be much harder to justify and it will become unworkable to consider each GRC holder on an individual basis. What will end up happening is that the organisations will have to operate a general policy of including transgender people with a GRC, and only exclude them on a case by case basis, which will arise only when the transgender service user has harmed, or attempted to harm a female service user.

This also disregards women's need for all female spaces for reasons that fall short of actual harm, such as distress and anxiety at being in close proximity to a male.

All a GRC does is legally change the sex of the holder. If Zhora is to be believed, this has no legal effect on anyone. A legal document which is of no use in legal terms has no point to it. Therefore, using Zhora's argument, the GRA is redundant and should be repealed.

Therefore, using Zhora's argument, the GRA is redundant and should be repealed.

This. Hope Zhora will join the campaign to do so.